First of all, I'd like to thank The Hunter (the plaintiff) for his efforts in helping the forum in fighting fraud in campaigns and multi-accounts. I need to emphasize that we as judges always use facts and legal rules in making decisions. We are of course always on the neutral side in deciding every case.
Based on what the plaintiff conveyed, we have carried out further investigation and analysis regarding this case.
With the facts provided, we can draw several important points regarding this case:
1. There is only 1 type of evidence, namely proof of transactions between wallets.
2. There is no supporting evidence that the sending wallet and the recipient's wallet are owned by one person.
As judges, we need strong and convincing admissible evidence to declare someone guilty. The evidence presented by the plaintiff is not strong enough because it is only suspected to be owned by one person. Further admissible evidence is needed to reach the conclusion that there is a strong connection. The plaintiff does not have key admissible evidence that elaborates on the proof of the transaction.
We close this case with the following conclusions:
Declare that the accused has not been proven guilty of what was alleged by the plaintiff.
Thank You
"If the prosecution cannot prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury or judge must acquit them"
https://thedefenders.net/blogs/acquittals/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt